2014 (12) TMI 862 - HC - Central Excise

Court dismisses delay petitions, imposes Rs. 50,000 costs on petitioner for deliberate delays.

VK. Palappa Nadar Firm Versus Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

VK. Palappa Nadar Firm Versus Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - 2015 (318) E.L.T. 226 (Mad.) Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.2. Alleged non-compliance with principles of natural justice.3. Supply of relied upon and unrelied upon documents.4. Jurisdictional challenges.5. Dilatory tactics by the petitioner.6. Tribunal's direction compliance.7. Limitation period for filing appeals.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing AppealsThe petitioner filed appeals against orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) with significant delays of 1409 days and 199 days. The High Court noted that the petitioner pursued the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, which went against the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The court found no bona fide reason for the delay, considering it a tactic to delay the adjudication process and dismissed the petitions with costs of Rs. 50,000.Issue 2: Alleged Non-Compliance with Principles of Natural JusticeThe petitioner claimed gross violation of principles of natural justice, asserting that not all relied upon and unrelied upon documents were supplied. The Adjudicating Authority and the Tribunal found that the necessary documents were provided, and any missing documents were not relied upon in the adjudication process. The Tribunal emphasized that the petitioner should have approached the first appellate authority rather than filing multiple miscellaneous petitions.Issue 3: Supply of Relied Upon and Unrelied Upon DocumentsThe petitioner repeatedly requested documents, which the department claimed to have supplied. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed that the petitioner received the documents in February 2002, but the petitioner continued to demand additional documents, leading to multiple hearings and delays. The Tribunal and the High Court found that the petitioner's claims were unfounded and that the necessary documents had been provided.Issue 4: Jurisdictional ChallengesThe petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to adjudicate the case, insisting that only the Additional Commissioner could do so. The Adjudicating Authority clarified that under Section 12E(1) of the Central Excise Act, a Central Excise officer could exercise the powers of a subordinate officer. The court found that the petitioner's jurisdictional challenges were another tactic to delay the proceedings.Issue 5: Dilatory Tactics by the PetitionerThe court observed that the petitioner adopted dilatory tactics to delay the adjudication process by repeatedly requesting documents and questioning the jurisdiction. The Adjudicating Authority and the Tribunal noted the petitioner's non-cooperation and deliberate defiance, leading to multiple hearings and orders. The court concluded that the petitioner's actions were intended to scuttle the department's demand for duty, penalty, and interest.Issue 6: Tribunal's Direction ComplianceThe Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to provide the necessary documents and conduct fresh adjudication. Despite compliance, the petitioner continued to claim non-receipt of documents and filed multiple applications under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules. The Tribunal dismissed these applications, emphasizing that the petitioner should have filed appeals before the first appellate authority.Issue 7: Limitation Period for Filing AppealsThe Tribunal and the High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, which held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone delays beyond the statutory period. The petitioner's appeals were dismissed as time-barred, and the court found no justification for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the petitions for condonation of delay, finding no bona fide reason for the delays and considering the petitioner's actions as deliberate attempts to delay the adjudication process. The court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner for wasting the valuable time of the Adjudicating Authority, the Tribunal, and the court.